Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Rhatahema's page

209 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

blahpers wrote:
This . . . oh wow. Given that you can choose to change your target as each attack resolves, this ability is pretty weird. You should know whether you dropped a foe after the second hit. If the foe doesn't drop, but would drop if you changed targets (thereby limiting the number of hits on that target to 2 and adding extra damage) . . . Ugh, my head hurts. I guess you're supposed to apply the damage, then retroactively remove it and add it to the third hit if the foe didn't drop on the second hit? *headdesk* Was this really necessary?

Worse than that, the bonus damage is always added to the last attack made against the target in the round. Basically, for each successful attack, you roll the jabbing style damage, then on the next successful attack, retract the jabbing style damage and reroll it.

Here's a weird example. Say you're fighting a goblin with Roll With It. On your second hit, the goblin uses Roll With It and fails its reflex save. You hit it with a third attack, but after retracting the damage from the second attack, you find that the goblin would have succeeded on his reflex save, and so it rolls out of range, taking no damage from the second hit and being out of range for the third.

Not sure how this is meant to be resolved. I guess the developer looked at hammer the gap and thought "How can we make this complicated enough monks will want it?"

Name of Doom wrote:
I think that the charmed life ability will be very good. Swashbucklers only have one good save (reflex), and are already wanting to get high dexterity and charisma, so their will and fortitude saves are bound to suffer. I think charmed life will help to compensate for that, so that the first dominate person spell thrown the party's way doesn't wreak havoc on everyone. Iron will only goes so far haha.

Charmed Life is solid. There's also Steadfast Personality from the same book for charisma to will saves vs mind-effects as an insight bonus, the irrepressible trait for charima in place of wisdom for will saves vs compulsion/charm, and the cap of the free thinker to roll saves vs mind-effects twice and take the better result. So even without jumping through hoops to get divine protection/divine grace, that's a lot of Charisma to will!

lemeres wrote:

....or you could play a Dragoon archetype fighter.

Unless I am misunderstanding something, this archetype is good in a way that makes my head hurt (in the 'lolwut?' kind of way). Basically, it has an ability that lets you spin your spear around, letting you basically use it as a double weapon (the other end is bludgeoning). But unlike a double weapon, both ends use your weapons regular enhancement bonus (and any special qualities that apply- so no keen on the blunt end).

This is a good archetype, but I'm not sure about using it to focus on TWF. Spinning Lance lets you treat the blunt end as a club, which seems like you would miss out on your spear training bonus (as well as weapon focus/specialization with your spear). And since the blunt end can only hit adjacent targets, you'll either need to make careful use of 5ft steps, or hit them at 10ft exactly when using lunge (assuming "adjacent" here refers to your natural reach).

EDIT: And rereading the ability, it doesn't actually turn your spear into a double weapon. So you can't actually use two-weapon fighting with it, as far as I can tell.

Besides that, the only abilities I see reliant on charisma are Charmed Life and the Dodging Panache deed. Those abilities require an immediate action anyway, which you might find another use for.

The Morphling wrote:
Rhatahema wrote:
I think that,
You think wrong. Holding a metamagic rod of extend spell does not allow you to treat yourself as possessing said feat for the purposes of prerequisites. Using Brawler's Flurry similarly does not in any way grant you the feat it imitates, nor does it let you take feats which require it as a prerequisite.
Advanced Class Guide, Brawler's Flurry, pg24 wrote:

Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s f lurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking

with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature.

You believe that "does not in any way" grant you the feat? You have the feat. It's not worded the same way as a metamagic rod, and it's not worded the same way as Flurry of Blows. I expect that it was intentionally worded that way to allow you to pick up feats like improved two-weapon feint or two-weapon defense, to be used in combination with Brawler's Flurry.

I think that, technically, you qualify for the improved and greater two-weapon fighting feats, because Brawler's Flurry doesn't grant you an extra attack as if using two-weapon fighting, like Flurry of Blows does. You actually have the feat while using it. So you'd meet the prerequisites to take those feats only while using a Brawler's flurry (and assuming you have the proper BAB and Dex). Furthermore, it seems to me that all the other benefits and restrictions of the ability would still take effect, just as if you had gained those feats through that class feature (since they apply to the full-attack as a whole, not just the extra attack you get through the class feature). You'd still need to meet the Dex and BAB prerequisites if taking them as standard feats.

That's going to be a contentious interpretation though, and not something I'd take to PFS before it's cleared up through an FAQ. That's likewise my feeling about the Cestus. Weapons that are also unarmed strikes have always been confusing, and the developers opinion is just that until it's nailed down in the rules. Something to work out with a DM in a home game.

As far as combining Brawler's Flurry with Flurry of Blows...Probably not. They're both made as full-attack actions, so I think you would have to choose which action to take.

thorin001 wrote:
The primary target IS entangled, his save is just to avoid being stuck to the floor.
Tanglefoot bomb wrote:
A creature that takes a direct hit from a tanglefoot bomb must save against the bomb’s DC or be entangled and glued to the floor as if it had failed its save against a tanglefoot bag.

Tanglefoot bags automatically entangle on a successful touch attack, but tanglefoot bombs require a save.

If you're interested, here's a link to a post I made a couple years ago including a stand-alone write-up for the tanglefoot bomb. Saved me a lot of time in-session.

Core Rulebook, pg114 wrote:
Benefit:...If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

A "benefit" is broader that a "bonus". "Benefit" includes everything a feat has to offer listed under "benefits". Notably, the 3.5 SRD/PHB includes this line in the same paragraph:

3.5 PHB wrote:
"In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once."

I get your argument that "stacking" only refers to numerical bonuses and penalties, and that no where does it state you can't select the same feat more than once. But you know how feats are intended to work and how they've been played since 2000, so what's the point of arguing this?

Chess Pwn wrote:
Rhatahema wrote:
This one is a bit easier. The strength bonus to damage has no bearing on handedness, which is mainly what flurry is concerned with.
Why do you say flurry is primarily concerned with handedness? A monk using a two-handed still gets power attack at the higher rate. But it seems to me you're saying that a flurry is wanting to remove handedness.

No, what I meant to say was that the way in which flurry alters your strength modifier to damage is concerned primarily with handedness. I agree power attack and all that should work fine.

To me it doesn't really matter. I feel as long as dragon style would apply to a flurry then backswing should. I feel the wording is the same. (on first attack use 1.5 to on non-first attacks use 2. I feel that's the same when it deals with flurry interactions) So I feel that anything that lets dragon style work but not backswing would have some serious text and rules needed to support that. Otherwise it's just them ruling their opinion of "flavor"

Well, I guess you're right. I'm reading between the lines a bit. As Caïen pointed out, by a strict reading, backswing adds a flat 2x your strength modifier to damage on top of everything else. But we know that wasn't the intent, so we mentally revise it. You're reading it as "add 2x your strength modifier to damage instead of whatever strength modifier to damage you would otherwise apply." I'm reading it as "Increase the multiplier for wielding a weapon two-handed from x1.5 to x2." I'm not saying I'm absolutely right about that though.

Part of why Dragon Style is easier is because it's still doing what it was meant to do, even in a flurry. Changing your US damage from x1 to x1.5. Though that feat has a similar problem if, say, your first US in a round is an off-hand attack (not a flurry).

But hey, if you don't agree, I can dig it. Probably not clear enough for Caïen to want to bring it to PFS though.

Caïen wrote:
This is what I believe is RAW. Heck, a legalese reading would mean that I add twice my Strength on top of my 1.5 modifier, since it does not call out that it replaces the 1.5 modifier.

Which is why I'm focusing on intent. The rules as written in this case create a conflict. One ability states your damage bonus becomes one value, the other ability states it becomes another. They're equally specific class features that modify a general rule in an incompatible way, and nothing implies one is applied before the other. Backswing essentially improves a benefit that flurry negates (the additional strength multiplier to damage for wielding a weapon two-handed). Backswing is written to bring your modifier from 1.5x to 2x, not 1x to 2x. I think it's a fair interpretation to say they don't mix. More generously, you might say that it adds +50% on your strength modifier to damage when wielding a weapon two-handed(which is how I'd have worded it, personally)

Dragon Style wrote:
Further, you can add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the damage roll for your first unarmed strike on a given round.

This one is a bit easier. The strength bonus to damage has no bearing on handedness, which is mainly what flurry is concerned with.

@Wraithstrike: Flurry of blows states that it's a full-attack action.

Unlike Dragon Style, the intent of Backswing is to improve the strength multiplier for wielding a weapon two-handed. The intent of Flurry of Blows is that wielding a weapon two-handed (or off-hand) has no bearing on the strength multiplier to damage. As such, I'd say you gain no benefit from backswing during a flurry.

1. I think the wording on this talent would be clearer as "At 6th level or later, a slayer can select this talent a second time.." and "at 10th level or later, a slayer can select this talent a third time..."

3. What qualifies as a "redundant ability" is kind of left up to interpretation. Allowing you to multiclass with your parent class was a decision made post-playtest, and I think the intent is that you handle it on a case-by-case basis. I would rule that your ranger would have to select the same combat style he selected as a slayer talent, but that he gains an additional feat from the list offered by that combat style (at the appropriate levels).

From what I can find, Agile is the only way you'll be getting dexterity to damage with a dagger or starknife.

It was a last minute addition that Slashing Grace even allows you to add dexterity to damage in place of strength, so it's not surprising you can't pull it off as a flying blade. They're releasing a feat that offers the same benefits to rapiers in the next book, but no such luck for other light weapons.

You haven't mentioned if the clouds are hampering the rogue's ability to engage in combat, but a necklace of adaptation (9k) combined with either a goz mask or fog-cutting lenses (8k) will allow him to operate within a stinking cloud at no penalty (save that the fog-cutting lenses impose a -4 perception penalty). Frontovik's Gas Mask covers both effects in a single slot for the same price (17k) and only imposes a -2 on perception checks, but you need to be in a cloud to see through it, and it's a WWI gas mask.

A high wind environment will dissipate clouds without affecting injury poison, but it's not a trick you'll want to pull more than a couple sessions.

The biggest issue seems to be that you have a character who's specialization (debuffing vs fort save) is being covered more effectively by a more versatile character. Rebuilding vivisectionist makes sense, or even a rogue/vivisectionist for sneak attack archetypes. But you might also talk to the player about shelving the character until a time when there's less overlap in the party. Two characters targeting the same weakness is just hard to balance.

BigDTBone wrote:
Imp. precise shot eliminates all cover penalties, so it is inclusive of precise shot. With neither you do indeed suffer an adjusted -8 if shooting into melee through a friendly square.

Checking the PRD, shooting or throwing into melee is under a different section entirely from the rules for cover (under Attacks). I'd agree with Kneller that improved precise shot isn't inclusive. But it is a good feat all the same, given how much of a pain it can be to determine cover.

deuxhero wrote:
Just how does dancing (or miming, which is a possible use for act going by The House of the Imaginary Walls, for that matter?) mask verbal components? Same with singing for somatic stuff.

Presumably it doesn't. The feat doesn't specify, but it seems clear the intent is that audible performances conceal verbal components, while visual performances conceal somatic.

Robert Jordan wrote:
Yeah it took me reading the comments to understand she was a trans character. It just seemed her parents were living in denial in having another daughter and just shunted her into "son" territory to try and not deal with the issue until she finally hit maturity and they couldn't avoid it anymore. I approve of the character, just did not get that it was a trans character until it was talked about in the comments.

I had the same read. The first paragraph is written so that you need to identify gender primarily as a psychological identification rather than a physical one in order for it to read as the author intended. My opinions about that are neither here nor there, but I imagine the ambiguity of it may have been intentional.

Rules question: How does she handle the -2 penalty on disguise checks to be "Disguised as different gender"? Can I powergame my character's gender identity to optimize disguise? (mostly joking here, though it might come up at some tables)

I agree with both sides of the argument, to an extent.

I agree that the rule as intended is that you simply bluff your way through appearing to know more than you do. The problem is that this is one of those abilities that puts restrictions on something you should have always been capable of. It's like an ability allowing a character to make a stealth check in place of a diplomacy check to sneak away from a conversation, or an intimidate check in place of a bluff check to make someone stop asking questions. Quite unnecessary.

On the other hand, I agree that the rules as written suggest you make a bluff check and then use that number for an INT based skill check. If it were presented in another context, such as "You perform an epic which grants supernatural insight", there would be no argument. But the segregation between flavor text and mechanics makes it a hard sell, regardless of whether it is or isn't balanced.

It's not so much that the ability is vague as it is mixed up. It was written to allow you to do something you could already do, that the designer felt you couldn't. Instead, it allows you to do something way more powerful that makes no thematic sense. The solution, I think, isn't to rule one way or the other, but to either house rule the masterpiece into something sensible or leave it alone.

Gromnar wrote:
I've a question regarding this portion of the feat. Does the character with deadly dealer (as a spellcaster) need craft magical arms and armor to enchant the deck as per the above, or does the deadly dealer feat itself give this ability?

Nothing in the text says, but since the Deck of Slivering Fate requires Craft Magical Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item in addition to the Deadly Dealer feat, I'd imagine you'd need those two crafting feats to pull it off.

Hm, have you looked at Chevalier? At 3rd level they get Smite Evil 1/day at character level. So I might go Paladin 2/Chevelier3, and pick up Bracers of the Avenging Knight to boost both class's smite level by 4.

As far as the strength of the build, looks okay. Not sure it's better than going straight bard or paladin. Dawnflower Dervish would get you twice the attack/damage bonus of Archeologist though. And with Divine Grace, I'm not sure how important the save boost of Archeologist's luck would be.

Kazaan wrote:
swift action eats your immediate action. You need your swift/immediate to use Glorious Challenge.

Well, an immediate action eats your swift, but same problem. :)

Iajutsu strike is a nice option if you can't full-attack, but I wouldn't build around that ability. The flat bonuses from Challenge seem to favor multiple attacks over a single strong blow. Not sure it'll be worth sacrificing an iterative attack at levels 6-9, and at levels 10-20 you'll only want to use it when closing the distance between enemies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrakeRoberts wrote:

I'm shocked people are still discussing this...

The OP has his answer. It is the purpose of this thread to answer to him, not a single detractor that has hijacked this thread with a refusal to hear the rules as they are. This thread may as well be locked at this point, or left to die. It has served it's purpose, and is now simply serving to fuel arguments and negative feelings.

I agree with this, except I think that there would be less of a consensus on how the two class features interact if everyone hadn't spent several pages rallying together over plain as day rules mechanics (needing to be a certain level in a class to get that class feature).

For instance, I think it's less clear how the two class features merge, if at all. Typically, when you have two class features of the same name but slightly different mechanics, the text will tell you how those class features stack and interact. I think you can apply rules logic to make some reasonable conclusions, but there's an absence of concrete rules here.

Though to discuss that, you'd need a ceasefire over the whole Sohei 6 thing, and it seems that for every person who realizes arguing further is pointless, another steps in.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Nicos wrote:

Uhm, A FAQ for a FAQ does not seems like good business.

Instead of making a general rule, can you just say what specific options are disallowed?

The current wording covers Magician. But if you guys on the forum want to help us out even more, if you find anything that is not a class feature, and it is affected by this FAQ but seems like it now does nothing, consolidate all of those here in this thread. I'm not aware of any such ability right now. I promise I will look at anything you can find and bring them up to everyone to consider.

Ah, I see. Seems obvious now, my head was just spinning. The question and first sentence of the answer are pretty dense. But more so, the FAQ doesn't call out an example of what doesn't work, which seems important since the FAQ is directly addressing those examples.

Hm, I'm a bit confused. So a Bard (Magician) can now only use expanded repertoire to select spells already on the bard spell list? It only says you add the spell to your spells known, not your spell list.

PRD wrote:

Expanded Repertoire (Ex): At 2nd level and every four levels thereafter, a magician can add one spell to his spells known from the spell list of any arcane spellcasting class. The spell must be of a level he can cast. This ability replaces versatile performance.

Torbyne wrote:
So you would have a +2 from two handed fighter training for any two handed weapon and could flurry with them and a seperate +1 from Sohei that doesnt stack with any two handed weapons. but if you choose a weapon group aside from polearms, say thrown weapons, you could still flurry with thrown weapons, yes? It sounds like you are saying the two handed fighter archetype limits a sohei's ability gain weapon training.

First, a two-handed fighter still selects weapon groups, it's just that "the bonuses only apply when wielding two-handed melee weapons." So if we're working under the assumption that expansions to the Sohei's weapon training ability likewise apply to the fighter's weapon training apply, then the inverse should also be true. That said, Two-handed fighter specifies the "bonuses" of weapon training, which are purely numerical (as opposed to the more general "benefits"). This means that a THF5/Sohei6 with +2 in the polearms group and +1 in the thrown weapons group could flurry or ki strike with any weapon in either group, but would only gain the bonus to attack and damage from weapon training when using two-handed melee weapons within either group.

That's my interpretation of the RAW, anyway. RAI, I think the Sohei's weapon training should have been named something unique, so as to have separate bonuses/benefits that stack with the bonuses/benefits of weapon training, rather than weirdly stacking class features.

I agree that you don't get the ability to flurry with weapon groups obtained through weapon training until your 6th level of Sohei. Skimming the thread, for the last 2 pages I think the only one to disagree with this is Malachi.

Another way to look at it is that if you don't have the levels (or effective levels) in a class needed to acquire a class feature, that class feature isn't on your character sheet. And if a class feature isn't on your character sheet, you can't use it.

@Torbyne: If the two class features indeed stack, then I don't think you'd select polearms twice. You'd select polearms as a weapon group at Two-Handed Fighter 5, then select a different group at Sohei 6, bumping polearms up to +2. You'd gain the ability to flurry and ki strike with any weapon groups picked up through two-handed fighter, but could only gain weapon training bonuses with two-handed weapons (even those gained through Sohei).

Ah, my mistake. I think I was just confused by the order of the text. The second paragraph starts off with a sentence about choosing not to use the conjured ammunition, leading me to believe it was the start of a new idea, but it then proceeds to assign properties to the conjured ammunition. Move that sentence to the end of the paragraph and it becomes a lot clearer. Sorry about that!

So yes, it looks like that enhancement is almost never worth it.

@Kudaku: You've skipped over some important text! Look again:

PFSRD wrote:
Only bows and crossbows can be made into endless ammunition weapons—firearms and other projectile weapons cannot. Each time an endless ammunition weapon is nocked, a single non-magical arrow or bolt is spontaneously created by the magic, so the weapon's wielder never needs to load the weapon with ammunition.

With there being no need to reload, it obviously negates the normal action cost. Additionally, it lets you make multiple attacks with that crossbow using only one hand (though with the standard penalties). Handy if you're in a grapple, really want that tower shield, or for whatever reason feel the need to dual wield crossbows. The restriction you were looking at applies only to loading the crossbow with ammunition not conjured by the enhancement.

If the wielder attempts to load the weapon with other ammunition, the created arrow or bolt immediately vanishes and the wielder can load the weapon as normal. This ability does not reduce the amount of time required to load or fire the weapon. The created arrow or bolt vanishes if removed from the weapon; it persists only if fired. Unlike normal bow and crossbow ammunition, these arrows and bolts are always destroyed when fired.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think another way to look at the question is "Does a dwarf need weapon familiarity to treat the dorn-dergar as a martial weapon?". I think the intent is that yes, you need weapon familiarity as a racial trait, and that the line in the description of the dorn-derger is simply reiterating the function of weapon familiarity.

Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
I think the best way to use the "not destroyed, returning" ability of the Cartomancer is to get a +1 Spell Storing deck...

Spell Storing can only be placed melee weapons (unless the archetype makes some change to that).

@Magda: Those templates are useful, but some have errors (or are at least debatable). I'm not aware of Paizo having released any templates officially.

The first collection of templates is mostly consistent with the ones in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, except they have a different interpretation of reach for medium and large (long) creatures. Basically, a creature shouldn't be able to slip through a reach weapon's threatened area by moving diagonally.

The bottom graph has the right reach for medium creatures, but large and huge are totally wrong.

I think the writer meant for the action to be "5 rounds", which would mean you'd need to take a full-round action each round for 5 rounds to perform the masterpiece, and at the beginning of your turn in the 6th round, the action would be complete (that's at least how a spell would work).

It's an okay option if you've got half a minute to buff and the enemy can't hear your bizarre monologue from the other side of the door.

We've had a lot of magic item crafters in my group, and this hasn't been much a problem for us. Sure you could craft a luck blade with one wish at low levels, but is it worth it? At low levels, I'd rather put that 32k towards a cloak of resistance or an ability boosting item or some handy wondrous item. Candle of Invocation is more problematic, but the player still won't want to gate in something of a higher HD than it can control. Since custom magic items are subject to DM approval, in practice this hasn't done anything to throw our games out of whack.

No, that's not how reach weapons work. A reach weapon doubles a creature's natural reach, but prevents them from attacking creatures with that weapon within the range of their normal reach.

PRD;Equipment wrote:
Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach...A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

Here's a link to the developer clarification on double-barreled weapons.

The double barreled weapon essentially gives you two attacks with a single attack action (or two attacks for any attack you'd normally make as part of a full-attack). With vital strike, it specifies that one attack deals additional damage, so I agree the bonus damage would only apply to the first shot.

Dead shot is a similar ability, but works differently. A double-barreled weapon would let you fire your deadshot twice (at the cost of -4 on all the attack rolls). Sounds crazy, but it's still lower damage than someone focused on full-attacking.

Double-barreled weapons are also never labeled as a volley, and there are no limitations presented on dealing precision damage with them. I remember the vaguely defined rules for volleys in 3.5, but haven't seen them called out in Pathfinder. Anyone got a link?

I agree that using a swift during a whirlwind attack to shorten his grip is valid. However, as it's written, he'd only be able to attack adjacent targets with that ability, which is more limited than his natural reach. Probably just an oversight, but that's how it's worded. On the other hand, lunge remains in effect with both reach and shortened grip, so he could actually compensate for the 5' gap that way.

Trox are monstrous humanoids, and enlarge person can only target humanoid creatures. If he found some other way to hit huge size though, then he'd be a unable to strike creatures 15' way (5'-10' at shortened grip with lunge, 20'-35' with reach and lunge).

This was an issue in 3.5 as well, so it'd be nice to see it settled. You'd have thought they'd have made just one table for all increases/decreases at the start of 3.0, but two revisions later and the rules are still scattered.

I've always leaned towards using the two Improved Natural Attack progressions for all increases and decreases, though it's a bit awkward to expand that progression by having 1d10 reduce to 1d8 (since 1d8 typically increases to 2d6). It's all that d10's fault!

I think Weapon Versatility, as a feat, is just a bit misguided. Slashing someone with a sap? Imagining that involves imagining a different weapon, I think. On the other hand, I'm not sure any restrictions were intended on how you can switch up damage, and I think the feat is balanced by itself.

Preferably, I'd like to see clearer rules on using weapons as improvised weapons (which gives the DM more say as to what's logical, as Kathanan is wanting) and weapon style feats tailored to making you more adept at those uses.

I agree that you wouldn't add sneak attack damage, on the basis that you don't make an attack roll yourself. An arrow trap, for instance, has a +15 attack bonus, so it attacks independently. Despite triggering it, you're not aiming it, so you can't target a creature's vitals.

I'd guess the intended benefit of this talent is simply that you decide when to trigger your trap. So say you've built a pit trap and want to lure an enemy onto it. Make the trap's trigger timed to go off in one year, so your allies can pass over it at no risk, but activate it as a swift when an enemy stands on it (or ready an action to do so, you can ready a swift).

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You can, with this feat:

Pathfinder Player Companion: Undead Slayer’s Handbook wrote:

Weapon Versatility (Combat)
You can use your favored weapons in unconventional ways.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: When wielding a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you can shift your grip as a swift action so that your weapon deals bludgeoning,
piercing, or slashing damage instead of the damage type normally dealt by
that weapon. You may switch back to the weapon’s normal damage type or another damage type as a swift action. If your base attack bonus is +5 or higher, using this feat is a free action instead.

Not to derail the thread, but is that the full text of the feat? You could adjust your grip on a club or firearm to deal slashing damage? Seems kind of...odd. I'd prefer improvised rules to that.

If your primary attack is with a manufactured weapon.

Ah, sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant was that your final damage for the first unarmed strike using both dragon style and dragon ferocity is your unarmed strike die + (1.5 x your strength modifier, in place of your usual strength modifier) + (.5 x your strength modifier), for a total of 2x your strength modifier to damage. The rest of your primary unarmed strikes for that round would add 1.5x your strength modifier to damage (your usual strength modifier +.5x your strength modifier).

As a house rule, I was just suggesting Dragon Style add .5x your strength modifier to avoid it giving a disproportionate edge to an offhand unarmed strike, supposing that was the first unarmed strike you made in a round.

First, cantrips aren't just 0th level spells in Pathfinder, but a distinct class feature. Alchemists do not have cantrips.

Second, you can only learn spells from a wizard's spellbook if those spells also appear on the alchemist's extract list. They're learned as extracts of a level appropriate to the alchemist, not wizard.

Third, Metamagic feats have no bearing on spellbooks. They're applied when a wizard memorizes their spells per day. Alchemists, as written, can't even make use of metamagic feats.

Setting aside flurry of blows for a moment, this feat has the odd effect that you add 1.5x your strength bonus on the first unarmed strike made in a round even if it's an off-hand attack. It could even be interpreted through a literal reading as allowing you to add 1.5x your strength bonus in addition to the usual strength bonus to damage (though the "normal" section implies that's not the intent).

Dragon Ferocity is a lot more streamlined in that it simply adds half your strength modifier to all unarmed strikes. That works fine with flurry, whereas I agree Dragon Style presents a conflict. Accordingly, I would just revise Dragon Style to add .5x your strength bonus on the first unarmed strike you make in a round.

Either way, as written, the first unarmed strike you make with Dragon Ferocity (assuming it's a primary attack) uses x2 your strength bonus for damage, which is pretty cool.

I wouldn't consider alchemist extracts to be Supernatural effects. I think labeling the Alchemy class feature (Su) was one of several mistakes. Extracts behave in no other way like supernatural abilities (they can be dispelled, consuming them provokes), and given their similarity to spells, it seems reasonable that spell resistance would apply.

For an example of an extract where this is relevant, fire breath.

There isn't much point in arguing that an item that generates an anti-magic field is impossible. One has already been printed.

Anyway, 120k for 1 minute of AMF per day is a big investment. 60k if you craft it yourself, which is more reasonable, but takes feats. You need tower shield proficiency to avoid some hefty penalties, and it prohibits wielding a weapon two-handed. So useful, but not for everyone.

Good GMs will also throw mixed encounters at you. So that arch wizard might be guarded by a dragon. Throwing up an AMF will let you rip the wizard apart, but you'll have to make it through the dragon's threatened area with all your magic nullified first.

There's an item that does this! Equalizer Shield. There was also an item in 3.5 that provided a 1/day anti-magic field, the Anti-magic Torc (Underdark, 25k).

I haven't gotten the opportunity to play a character with either option, but I think it'd be useful occasionally. The biggest issue I think is that even if your character is optimized to work without magic, most of your party probably isn't.

Bottled Ooze is an awesome idea, but it's a pretty terrible discovery. The low CR restriction is bad. Worse, you don't control the ooze, and can only throw it out to a range of 30ft. It's nice that you decide when and where the ooze appears, but it makes the tactical applications pretty limited. At worst, you've just added another monster to the encounter (that you won't get XP for).

My argument against a buff is only that the discovery needs a revision first. Pathfinder deliberately revised all 3.5 abilities that allowed you to become a monster for a reason. Writers don't intend for their monsters to be used by the players, so you can end up with some unbalanced options (such creatures that create spawn). Which is probably why they were so conservative with the CR.

I'd change the range to 20ft, but treat it as a thrown weapon (5 range increments), let the alchemist mentally compel the ooze as a move action, and make a specific list of oozes for each extract level. Though if you were feeling more ambitious, you could homebrew an ooze that scales with level, and even give it a list selectable abilities (similar to an eidolon).

So, looking at the buckler gun, I'm having trouble understanding the intended function. Historically, bucklers were held, so it's not too hard to imagine a buckler gun working that way. But in Pathfinder, bucklers are strapped to the arm, allowing for a free hand. So how do you fire the gun? Or, more specifically:

1.)Do you still have a free hand when armed with a buckler gun?

2.)Do you take a -1 penalty to the attack roll when firing a buckler gun, since you're using the off-hand carrying the buckler? Do you lose the buckler gun's shield bonus until your next turn?

3.)To create a masterwork buckler gun, do you pay the costs of both a masterwork shield and a masterwork weapon? Do you determine the hardness and hit points of the item as a buckler or a projectile weapon? How do you handle special materials?

Or maybe you're meant to fire the gun with the hand on which the buckler isn't strapped?

1 to 50 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.